shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Iain McKie · Joined: 08 May 2007 Posts: 263 Location: Ayr, Scotland.

I came upon this paper written by Canadian barrister David G. Chow http://www.faganandchow.com/profile-david-chow/ that refers to problems his courts have in assessing expert evidence. Following the Sir Roy Meadows scandal and various Scottish cases it seems clear that we are dealing with an international phenomenon that requires immediate action.

I would hope this is an issue that the ongoing Fingerprint Inquiry will accept as being within its remit.

http://ccdlaforum.blogspot.com:80...sheeps-clothing-advocates-as.html

W.Roughead · Joined: 25 Oct 2008 Posts: 120 Location: Scotland.

This is an interesting paper, and he makes excellent points throughout.

I totally agree that expert witnesses should give their opinions regardless of other factors, and considerations. Currently, they are in the witness box to perform a service to either the defence or the prosecution, based on their particular specialized field.

Where the human factor is involved, and quite regardless of the profession or skill, there will always be errors. No one is infallible, but some find it hard to admit to their errors.

Making deliberate errors, of course, is quite another matter.

He made an excellent point with regard to juries, made up entirely of lay people from all walks of life, most of whom will never have been inside a courtroom until jury duty. When they watch and listen to an expert giving evidence and opinion, that expert becomes infallible. It is his or her professional opinion, “they must know what they are talking about, and therefore, they must be right.”

The world is indeed getting smaller all the time.

_________________
“Send not to know for whom the bell tolls – it tolls for thee.” John Donne.